Race and intelligence

[Halb]

Steve126 said:

Andrew Marr presented a programme about Darwin in which he stated they have recently discovered a "super intelligence" gene. They tested Marr to see if he has the gene, but he hasn't. They also stated that this gene is most common in European people and least common in Sub Saharan Africans.

It's a shame they ignored this kind of thing in the C4 show, but that seemed to be more about giving the presenter the answers he wanted.

Is this the gene you were referencing?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/06042...
http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html
""This is not a gene FOR intelligence," says Danielle M. Dick, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychiatry and lead author on the study. "It's a gene that's involved in some kinds of brain processing, and specific alterations in the gene appear to influence IQ. But this single gene isn't going to be the difference between whether a person is a genius or has below-average intelligence."

Dick's team comprehensively studied the DNA along the gene and found that several variations within the CHRM2 gene could be correlated with slight differences in performance IQ scores, which measure a person's visual-motor coordination, logical and sequential reasoning, spatial perception and abstract problem solving skills. When people had more than one positive variation in the gene, the improvements in performance IQ were cumulative. The study's findings are available online in Behavioral Genetics and will appear in an upcoming print issue of that journal.

IQ tests also measure verbal skills and typically include many subtests. For this study, subjects took five verbal subtests and four performance subtests, but the genetic variations influenced only performance IQ scores."

[JustinP1]

Four Cofffee said:

Does it matter?

Even if the research said race A was 10% more intelligent than Race B, it not very useful information is it? After all you couldn't start sayinmg ALL prople from that race are stupid because that would be inaccurate and 90% of the time you'd be wrong.

Look at men and women. Men tend to be better at visual-spatial tasks, and women in verbal intelligence (on average) and lots of research shows that. But you wouldn't put any money on the next bloke you meet being better than the next women you meet at map reading or 3D desiogn or the next woman being better at dealing with people verbally.

Final point: many IQ tests measure what the developer sees as IQ. Not many years ago that was bizarre knowledge only public school educated oafs hadn been taught. Although the idea of a more fluid intelligence is gaining ground many tests still measure what the dominant local group are good at.

It matters hugely - and to ignore something like that it just destructive.

If a race or sex has a particular talent, then it is extremely useful to know this - for everyone's sake.

For example, do you want to hazard a guess at what the average Native American wage was before the 1920's, and then *after* skyscrapers were being built and it was discovered that as oppose to whites, that they had an uncanny knack of being able to be immune to the effects of vertigo?

To not bother to accept factors like this, it is being PC for the sake of it - Should the Ethiopian Athletic Association spend an equal amount of money investing in the next world champion shotputter as they invest in finding long distance runners?

The subject is only taboo because people make it that way.

[Steve126]

Halb,
I don't know if that's the one. They didn't go in to much detail other than stating that people who have the gene are usually more intelligent than those who don't.

Edited by Steve126 on Saturday 31st October 11:32

[HundredthIdiot]

JustinP1 said:

It matters hugely - and to ignore something like that it just destructive.

If a race or sex has a particular talent, then it is extremely useful to know this - for everyone's sake.

For example, do you want to hazard a guess at what the average Native American wage was before the 1920's, and then *after* skyscrapers were being built and it was discovered that as oppose to whites, that they had an uncanny knack of being able to be immune to the effects of vertigo?

To not bother to accept factors like this, it is being PC for the sake of it - Should the Ethiopian Athletic Association spend an equal amount of money investing in the next world champion shotputter as they invest in finding long distance runners?

The subject is only taboo because people make it that way.

You're entirely missing the point.

Even if there was a statistical correlation it would still be dwarfed by individual variations. So it's only useful in population-level policy decisions, like genocide.

Say I'm a construction employer in your vertigo scenario. If vertigo was such an issue, I should test people individually for vertigo, not discriminate by their apparent "race". As commented a number of times on this thread, what we perceived visually as race bares little relation to the complexities of the genetic soup behind it all.

[clarkey318is]

HundredthIdiot said:

JustinP1 said:

It matters hugely - and to ignore something like that it just destructive.

If a race or sex has a particular talent, then it is extremely useful to know this - for everyone's sake.

For example, do you want to hazard a guess at what the average Native American wage was before the 1920's, and then *after* skyscrapers were being built and it was discovered that as oppose to whites, that they had an uncanny knack of being able to be immune to the effects of vertigo?

To not bother to accept factors like this, it is being PC for the sake of it - Should the Ethiopian Athletic Association spend an equal amount of money investing in the next world champion shotputter as they invest in finding long distance runners?

The subject is only taboo because people make it that way.

Whats the test for vertigo, dangling people off buildings? I agree with you entirely though.
You're entirely missing the point.

Even if there was a statistical correlation it would still be dwarfed by individual variations. So it's only useful in population-level policy decisions, like genocide.

Say I'm a construction employer in your vertigo scenario. If vertigo was such an issue, I should test people individually for vertigo, not discriminate by their apparent "race". As commented a number of times on this thread, what we perceived visually as race bares little relation to the complexities of the genetic soup behind it all.

[Pesty]

Bad drivers may in part have their genes to blame, suggests a new study by UC Irvine neuroscientists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/09102...

[voyds9]

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

[Frankeh]

voyds9 said:

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

I always thought it was obvious that mixed race is better.
IIRC from biology isn't diversity the key to evolution?

[Marf]

Frankeh said:

voyds9 said:

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

I always thought it was obvious that mixed race is better.
IIRC from biology isn't diversity the key to evolution?

Indeed.

[voyds9]

Marf said:

Frankeh said:

voyds9 said:

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

I always thought it was obvious that mixed race is better.
IIRC from biology isn't diversity the key to evolution?

Indeed.

I agree diversity gives you a better chance in a new environment but specialisation is the key in a fixed environment.

The non Galapagos turtles have died out on the Galapagos islands.

[Marf]

voyds9 said:

Marf said:

Frankeh said:

voyds9 said:

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

I always thought it was obvious that mixed race is better.
IIRC from biology isn't diversity the key to evolution?

Indeed.

I agree diversity gives you a better chance in a new environment but specialisation is the key in a fixed environment.

The non Galapagos turtles have died out on the Galapagos islands.

No argument there, but its relevance to todays modern human is negligible IMO. Very few of us have a requirement to live in a fixed environment where overt specialisation is the key to survival, our ability to function in quotidian environments is what distinguishes us from the animals, and one reason why genetic diversity can only be a good thing for the overall health of our species.

Edited by Marf on Tuesday 3rd November 12:38

[Frankeh]

voyds9 said:

Marf said:

Frankeh said:

voyds9 said:

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

I always thought it was obvious that mixed race is better.
IIRC from biology isn't diversity the key to evolution?

Indeed.

I agree diversity gives you a better chance in a new environment but specialisation is the key in a fixed environment.

The non Galapagos turtles have died out on the Galapagos islands.

In this environment, wouldn't equal breeding between all races be the answer?

I can think of the 3 distinct races at the moment. Asian, Caucasian and Black.
So wouldn't the best mix occur when all three are mixed in equal measures.
I'm sure there's a family tree that would allow that to happen.

I would like to se the result.

[Halb]

Marf said:

voyds9 said:

Marf said:

Frankeh said:

voyds9 said:

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

I always thought it was obvious that mixed race is better.
IIRC from biology isn't diversity the key to evolution?

Indeed.

I agree diversity gives you a better chance in a new environment but specialisation is the key in a fixed environment.

The non Galapagos turtles have died out on the Galapagos islands.

No argument there, but its relevance to todays modern human is negligible IMO. Very few of us have a requirement to live in a fixed environment where overt specialisation is the key to survival, our ability to function in quotidian environments is what distinguishes us from the animals, and one reason why genetic diversity can only be a good thing for the overall health of our species.

Edited by Marf on Tuesday 3rd November 12:38

I belive Bulworth put it most aptly
Bullworth: All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep fkin' everybody 'til they're all the same color.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118798/quotes

[Hugo a Gogo]

Frankeh said:

voyds9 said:

Marf said:

Frankeh said:

voyds9 said:

And after last weeks episode trying to point out that whites and blacks are equal this week we have mixed race as superior.

I always thought it was obvious that mixed race is better.
IIRC from biology isn't diversity the key to evolution?

Indeed.

I agree diversity gives you a better chance in a new environment but specialisation is the key in a fixed environment.

The non Galapagos turtles have died out on the Galapagos islands.

In this environment, wouldn't equal breeding between all races be the answer?

I can think of the 3 distinct races at the moment. Asian, Caucasian and Black.
So wouldn't the best mix occur when all three are mixed in equal measures.
I'm sure there's a family tree that would allow that to happen.

I would like to se the result.

that would be the arabs

[HundredthIdiot]

Frankeh said:

I can think of the 3 distinct races at the moment. Asian, Caucasian and Black.

Seriously?

[Frankeh]

HundredthIdiot said:

Frankeh said:

I can think of the 3 distinct races at the moment. Asian, Caucasian and Black.

Seriously?

Distinct is the key word. They vary a lot from each other.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Frankeh said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Frankeh said:

I can think of the 3 distinct races at the moment. Asian, Caucasian and Black.

Seriously?

Distinct is the key word. They vary a lot from each other.

race distinctions are completely arbitrary and subjective

[Frankeh]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Frankeh said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Frankeh said:

I can think of the 3 distinct races at the moment. Asian, Caucasian and Black.

Seriously?

Distinct is the key word. They vary a lot from each other.

race distinctions are completely arbitrary and subjective

Point out the asian man. Point out the black man. Point out the white man.
There's no way you can say any of those could be mistaken for the other. And that's my point.
A hispanic man could be mistaken for a tanned white man quite easily, and vise versa.

Edited by Frankeh on Tuesday 3rd November 13:08

Edited by Frankeh on Tuesday 3rd November 13:08

Edited by Frankeh on Tuesday 3rd November 13:09

[Hugo a Gogo]

Frankeh said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

Frankeh said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Frankeh said:

I can think of the 3 distinct races at the moment. Asian, Caucasian and Black.

Seriously?

Distinct is the key word. They vary a lot from each other.

race distinctions are completely arbitrary and subjective

Point out the asian man. Point out the black man. Point out the white man.
There's no way you can say any of those could be mistaken for the other. And that's my point.
A hispanic man could be mistaken for a tanned white man quite easily, and vise versa.

Edited by Frankeh on Tuesday 3rd November 13:08

Edited by Frankeh on Tuesday 3rd November 13:08

well done

now get pictures of a thousand different people from all over the world, and ask a thousand people to tell you what race they all are

betcha they don't all come up with the same answer

especially if one of the pictures is of Michael Jackson

edit: and I notice you use the example of 'hispanic' - the most arbitrary and subjective term of all

Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Tuesday 3rd November 13:15

[Hugo a Gogo]

or how about this bloke?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1201841/...

or these twins (yes, twins)

Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Tuesday 3rd November 13:13